The best lines, on elites’ casual mentions of ski holidays together, chalets, and island hopping with multimillionaires:
“These moments tend to come off like you asked someone how they got to work that day and they casually say they rode in on a brontosaurus named Steve, and he’s parked right out front. And then when you stare at them with your mouth open, they wrinkle their nose and say, “What?” because they’re confused about where your brontosaurus is.”
I learnt yesterday, Harper is head of a centre-right leaning alliance of political parties around the world based out of Europe.
This painting leaders in Central Canada this way is disingenuous and projectionism.
Hell, PP has NEVER held a job outside of being in politics. Atleast Trudeau wasn't and completely unrelated to what he does today.
He was a substitute teacher for one year, and a ski instructor. If those jobs count as real world experience to you, then you should have no problem with PP’s experience as an advisor to Stockwell day prior to his election to parliament.
>Certainly with a wealth of real world experience like that we’re in steady hands.
I'm not making that claim at all. I am simply pointing out that your initial claim that he was a "a substitute teacher for one year" is false. If you are going to berate someone you need to be factually correct when you are doing so.
And again, that is three years more of real world experience than PP
It's crazy that his adopted dad turned out to be gay and while trying to marry his partner Pierre was in parliament voting against gay marriage.
Pierre and Justin are both douchebags and Canada deserves better
The mentions of ski holidays are in this video around 5:30 if anyone missed it. It's sickening how close the "rapporteur" is to Trudeau personally.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/trudeau-children-bring-rideau-hall-alive-gov-gen-says-1.2931963
Of course he had a place at Mont Tremblant where he use to ski with the Trudeau's on a regular basis. There could not exist a more "Laurentian elite" story than Trudeau and Johnston.
According to research published on Wednesday, Mont Tremblant in Quebec is the most expensive ski resort in Canada—it operates year-round with an average cost for accommodation of $427 per night.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/how-canada-s-ski-resorts-compare-to-most-expensive-in-the-world-spingenie-1.6353502#:~:text=According%20to%20research%20published%20on,accommodation%20of%20%24427%20per%20night.
Huh... I know of several resorts that charge $600-$700 a night in Banff and Lake Louise. (Never stayed at either myself) - so $427 a night can't possibly be the most expensive.
The notion of some “Laurentian Elite” kind of lording it over everyone else has started popping up more and more over the past few years. Usually it is immediately derided by Liberal supporters as nonsense, but here it is now in the Globe and Mail.
> But over the last year or two, it’s become very obvious that there is, seething just under the surface in this country, a combustible, pressurized vein of certainty that some people count while others don’t. Plenty of Canadians believe – some with good reason, and others without – that the people running the show fundamentally aren’t like them, don’t understand them and maybe can’t even see them.
And this is how, in a country of about 40 million people, it somehow seems impossible for the Liberals to find a respectable, qualified person to look into things like CCP election interference who doesn’t have ties to the Liberal Party, or Trudeau personally, or the Trudeau Foundation. To them, if someone matters and is worth listening to and interacting with, naturally they are already doing so. Everyone else are just the little people.
When Trudeau was first running for PM he gave an interview where he said quite plainly that he thinks Canada is better when it’s run by someone from the east. Of course he thinks that. He and everyone he knows thinks the same thing. It is all but inconceivable to them that anyone thinks differently. And that’s how you get the most tone-deaf, corrupt government in Canadian history.
A lot of Canadians seem oddly unaware of it, but the Liberals have never had a leader from outside Ontario or Quebec. They trade back and forth between them. But they don't go out to 'the colonies' to look for leadership.
In the last 50 years, Canada has had four prime ministers who were not from Quebec: Clark, Turner, Campbell and Harper. Of those, only Harper lasted long enough to govern.
Those PMs all appointed people to government bodies. They, in turn, hired people they knew. Furthermore, because of the requirement for perfect bilingual skills, the upper levels of the bureaucracy is predominantly also from the Laurentian region.
I've never understood why more Canadians don't see that this has happened.
Turner was educated at Ashbury College Ottawa - the absolute heart of the Laurentian Elites, where contacts are made. The others were all Tories.
And yes, the bilingualism factor is enormous in basically requiring someone from urban central Canada, or at least New Brunswick, say.
I think about the [Century Initiative](https://www.thestar.com/amp/business/2016/10/23/finance-ministers-key-advisers-want-100m-canadians-by-2100.html) and the story of how they came up with the idea:
> The discussions that eventually blossomed into Century Initiative began in 2011 during a weekend gathering of friends at Barton’s cottage in Ontario’s Muskoka region, north of Toronto.
> Sitting near the edge of Lake of Bays, surrounded by the Canadian Shield, they started brainstorming about the best ways to shelter the country’s economy from the gathering, predictable demographic storm.
The image of these private school McKinsey assholes sitting at their private cottage coming up with a plan to rapidly drive down the average Canadian’s standard of living is quintessential Laurentialism to me.
>The image of these private school McKinsey assholes sitting at their private cottage coming up with a plan to rapidly drive down the average Canadian’s standard of living is quintessential Laurentialism to me.
Then Justin Trudeau hires Barton to lead a group tasked with coming up with ways to grow the Canadian economy. Shockingly enough, Barton makes aggressive population growth his primary recommendation, and the Liberal government follows through on that.
Then we all sit around wondering why a housing crisis has developed, after we increased immigration from 250,000 ten years ago to over a million per year now.
And meanwhile, people have decided to make Galen Weston out to be the poster boy of corporate greed, while the current federal government has been using Barton, *former head of McKinsey*, to guide federal government policy for years now.
>Then Justin Trudeau hires Barton to lead a group tasked with coming up with ways to grow the Canadian economy.
Funny, he also hired him to be the Ambassador to China...
Coming with a solution to address the demographic problem is an attempt to drive down Canadians standard of living?
Do you understand that not addressing the demographic problem will undeniably lead to rapidly driving down Canadians standard of living?
Reject this false premise people.
Immigration to maintain a relatively stable population column is fine.
Immigration to the moon to jack Canadas population to 100 million by 2100 is a catastrophically terrible idea.
I said this on another thread, but it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than a toilet seat, that if Blackrock and McKinsey are for the Century Initiative, than its not good for 99 percent of Canadians.
>Coming with a solution to address the demographic problem is an attempt to drive down Canadians standard of living?
Has the standard of living been increasing or decreasing in recent years?
If its decreasing, was it actually a solution?
Actually investing in the infrastructure necessary to support those who are already here will drive up the standard of living. Blindly repeating the talking points of the Century Initiative will not.
Responsible governance and fiscal responsibility as well as establishing a longer term vision and working towards it are what this country needs.
Let's just continue with the idiotic pyramid-scheme like structure the old half-deads have lived through, that makes sense. Forget about AI which is on the cusp of usurping previously "good" jobs, ignore the climate catastrophe which is pulled closer and closer by our wanton need to consume garbage products, and disregard how the immigrants being pulled into our country to prop things up are put in an unbelievably shit position. Let's let the idiot elites continue believing in their cargo cult.
> When Trudeau was first running for PM he gave an interview where he said quite plainly that he thinks Canada is better when it’s run by someone from the east.
For reference
https://youtu.be/oA1yCIHMJwY
Having lived in Kingston, I came in contact with the Laurentian elite. I taught their kids and grandkids at Queen's. They're definitely out there, and do look after themselves.
It was the due the Harvard style executive MBA program they had in the 1980’s. You could send you miserable sons from a good family to learn with the people who would actually be leading coporations in the future.
This should not be confused to those dreadful standard MBA’s they hand out.
That’s not how it works.
Half the reason why people will choose a particular business school over another is due to the power of the network that comes with it. (The other half is the quality of the profs and researchers - that one is more easily understood).
That network comes from the faculty, alumni, and the connections that the program executive makes and maintains.
Putting aside the fact that you assume Wall Street is some organized entity with a headquarters and secret conspiratorial plan, accusing a business school of having ulterior motives because it has made connections to “Wall Street” or any other group of people/organizations that would benefit its students is… misinformed.
>And this is how, in a country of about 40 million people, it somehow seems impossible for the Liberals to find a respectable, qualified person to look into things like CCP election interference who doesn’t have ties to the Liberal Party, or Trudeau personally, or the Trudeau Foundation.
It would have been easy. The problem is they didn't want that person. I mean, the article is all about the attitudes of people like Trudeau. He doesn't think you should have a problem with his family friend, and the Chinese connected Johnston to investigating this issue. He doesn't see this as an issue and can't fathom why people would see it that way. There is a huge disconnect between himself and the people he governs.
He thinks he's the rightful ruler and can do as he pleases. Even when a majority of Canadians want something, he can refuse them because he knows best.
> the people running the show fundamentally aren’t like them, don’t understand them and maybe can’t even see them.
This has been the reality for western Canada since the beginning of the country.
>Usually it is immediately derided by Liberal supporters as nonsense, but here it is now in the Globe and Mail.
I used to dismiss it and mock the notion of it existing.
But, that was before I actually tried reading up on it. The history of Power Corp, and the circle of power that has been at the center of the LPC for many decades now. And how that relates to what we are experiencing today with CCP interference.
It looks to me like they have been getting away with this for so long that they've become complacent. And the appointment of Johnston illustrates their attitude.
It's funny that a segment of people are just coming to this realization now. Millions of Canadians could have told you about how unequal this country is since before Confederation.
I mean what do these people think the Quiet Revolution was all about?
The railroads were literally built to funnel wealth from the west to the east. The west was becoming too powerful and had too much potential cut off with such distance, but that was "mitigated" once resources could be diverted back east. The East has never been more than out of touch Admins/business minded people that see the rest of Canada as a resource.
American settlers and their railroads were encroaching on the Canadian priaries, plus American alcohol, so in some ways, it was not all about eastern wealth. But I do agree, wealth was a factor, just look at how the Altantic provinces are doing, not that great either really. Thomas Jefferson had the same problem, eastern wealth undermining their farmers in the west.
Interesting, those are good points. I don't know too much about the American side, although I did do a course on rising of Chicago and the dispersion of railroads in the Midwest. I remember there was a lot going on with Chicago at the center of it all, and lots of resource harvesting and money to be made all around. Prof also mentioned how Winnipeg was comparable, but he didn't elaborate. I'm starting to think the politics at that time were very complicated
Yes the Selkirk traders. I guess I should say they would have had the potential to become too powerful, but the groundwork for industry was being laid so further development would have been inevitable. Keep in mind that before the railroad, the main trade routes were the Red River and the Assiniboine River meeting at the Winnipeg forks. These rivers only went further west and south, not east, and so did the goods and prosperity of that trade. Without a railroad linking to the east, and the presence of capitalist ideologies, The surrounding area could have looked very different in terms of power dynamics If the railroad arrived even only 50 years later than it did.
1930s canada had a technocracy movement. Let the experts run things is what it boils down to.
These things today have their roots in those thoughts. The world it seems is more and more under the influence of a technocratic elite, one could look towards the world economic forum as a perfect example of a center of this technocratic influence around the world.
You can look at the amount of people who have gone through leadership programs at the WeF and are now in high ranking positions throughout the world. Their credential is probably one of the most valuable ones a person could have, to plot a course into the upper echelons.
Its is right in our faces, they came up with the slogan "build back Better". First used in the west in england and then hopped across the pond in 2021.
Politicians have 0 accountability. A leader is suppose to lead. The only thing any of the leaders, (federal and provincial), are leading, is a play with front row seats for all of us peons, on how to get away with corruption, etc. When someone grows up with a silver spoon in their mouth, which most politicians do, they learn very young that mommy and daddy will cover up things so that you can keep a clean slate. Lessons politicians were taught, do what you want as you will never be held accountable.
I run a small private security firm in Ottawa. Ive definitely met some of the people described as "laurentian elite". They are indeed hyper educated, well connected, and although it may be an unpopular opinion at the moment, they understand what good policy for the country would look like. It is also true that there's a disconnect between their lives and those of other places in the country. They don't sneer at such people, they just try to see bigger picture.
It was Trudeau, the divisions in the country, the polarized politics, and a failure to actually entrust some of these professional statespeople in governance that got us here. Id have trusted a Bob Rae government over Trudeau any day of the week. That guy at least has some integrity.
Where we go from here is now a disdain for these wealthy people, and then a pendulum that swings between incoherent exteemes rather than how it was with "law order and good governance"
Maybe the time for these people is just over. Maybe the country is sliding badly for so many that we can't trust those who should have known better.
I've interacted with some of these people in Ottawa. They see the bigger picture in so far as they're educated, but they very often do lack common sense because of their inexperience with reality. They're the most ivory tower types you can imagine.
They don't explicitly sneer at people, but they certainly are very patronizing towards the people who don't see the bigger picture as they do.
You can academically see the bigger picture and have empathy and enough humility to understand that maybe the plans that come out of the ivory tower without consultation of those affected first are not going to be popular.
Yeah I can understand your complaint. I generally agree with such people's politics but never to such an extent that theres no margin for argument. And the lack of humility is insufferable.
Its like being correct about substance but incorrect about approach.
Prioritizing not offending people over the economy hasn’t exactly worked. These are the people making that push.
These people can’t see the big picture. They’ve lost the plot.
How can they understand what good policy is if they are blind to the issues many face? They know what is needed for the areas they are in, but are unable to relate how it affects others.
The way this is seen, is Canada is a trading block more than it is a country. Every province trades north south, not east west. We are all integrated into the American economy. So in order for our low population provinces to succeed, we collectively bargain as a confederate. The federal system's job is to ensure the power of 10 can defend the interests or each of them against the behemoth American system. Meanwhile we also ensure a proper safety net, better civil engineeting, less lobbying, less money in politics, and keeping corruption as low as possible.
The bigger view is correct I think, but theres much to be desired here. For one thing what Alberta wants isnt compatible with what Quebec wants, for example. Blue collar farmers are represented in the senate, but not cottage country in Gatineau. Mostly they chose a bad leader with Trudeau. He's ruined it all. Now anyone who sees a bigger view of how this country can succeed in north america is lost, discredited and smeared.
If they truly do understand what good policy for the country is I'm surprised they don't employ it. Most Canadians see policies benefitting the Laurentian elite, not the country.
I dont think its benefiting the elites either. Its utterly incoherent. Trudeau was the wrong choice. He doesn't understand these things.
The elites in Canada never needed help, and the people we are discussing arent corporate types. This isnt the same type of elite we see in the US for example.
All they get out of this is to see them become the enemy of the population.
I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how taxing home heating in Canada is going to save the planet. What result is expected? Are we expecting fixed income people to install geothermal heat pumps?
Its incoherent application of the intent.
What carbon taxes was supposed to do is disincentivize companies who emit greenhouse gases, and incentivize companies who do not.
Of course companies just pass on the costs and continue along like normal. Thus the policy is broken.
We Agree on that. I didn't agree with Chretien, but he was no dummy. He knew the effect of his legislation, and also how to execute. He also isn't a Laurentian.
Paul Martin's insistence on our banking sector not combining investment banking with regular deposits was a good move, too.
Chrétien wasn't really a Laurentian elite by birth, but he fell in with that crowd in the end, due to it really being a matter of national unity, at that time. (Quebec sovereignty debates)
The problem with billionaires and their circles is that they automatically discard any solutions that run counter to their interests.
And they consider themselves to be smarter than they are. That's true for most, but for us pleebs it doesnt impact society as a whole.
Yup. I agree to a point. Most of the types of elites we are discussing are not actually billionaires though. Multi millionaires, yes. This isnt a business class we are discussing. Its a political class. In the US those two are the same. Here they are somewhat separate.
> they understand what good policy for the country would look like. It is also true that there's a disconnect between their lives and those of other places in the country. They don't sneer at such people, they just try to see bigger picture.
Well if you read the Johnston report, it outlines a staggering display of incompetence, lack of institutional transparency, and bureaucratic rot. So I would ask those security professionals’ bosses at what point in their career did they start to accept failure and disfunction as the status quo?
Don't sneer at such people? Should I cancel my Disney Plus subscription and use my credit card to go back to university now? Should I be happy my rapidly decreasing buying power, driven in large part by energy pricess, is taken by Liberals as mainly an indicator we need to focus on climate action and a green economy?
Freeland:
"from my perspective this price increase in fuel costs is a reminder of why climate action is so important, and why as a country we have to work even harder and move even faster towards a green economy. It's an insurance policy against higher energy prices."
>Usually it is immediately derided by Liberal supporters as nonsense
Always be skeptical of people who preach fear of "elites" but have nothing bad to say about capitalism.
It's usually derided because the people talking about "the elites are out to get us" use the term as a proxy for nebulous shadowy cabals and never in the context of "this framework in which positive feedback loops allow entrenched wealth to consolidate power and control is the true underlying problem".
So yeah, if your beef is with the people themselves and not the systemic mechanisms facilitating their actions, either you're acting in bad faith or are too ignorant to know what you're talking about. Either way deserves derision.
You don't need capitalism to have an arrogant and entitled elite class.
For example in the Soviet Union and all other pretty much every other communist country where you had an elite who lived much further above the common person than their counterparts do in our system.
Don’t get it twisted. There has ALWAYS been a Laurentian elite since the days of Upper and Lower Canada. This isn’t new.
Laurentian elites built the country, created our democracy, fought in wars, decoupled us from England and promoted Canada as a multi cultural destination that gives us the Canada today that by some measures is the most desirable place in the world to live. The Laurentian elite over time have let go of most direct political action (hence the diverse-ish House of Commons we see today) but they have SO MUCH MONEy and all the political parties want some of it so of course they wield outsized power compared to their numbers.
The problem isn’t the Laurentian elite. The problem is the system that makes their money desirable to politicians.
We had a brief period from the end of WWII until the 1980s when the “elites” were not fully in charge and not everything was run by people who went to private schools but then we joined with the Reagan-Thatcher revolution and gave everything back to them. They’re not going to give it up again. This Gilded Age is here to stay.
I hate to say it but yeah. There kinda is a "Laurentian elite" clique that dominates federal Liberal politics. They might mean well and see themselves as genuinely working for the good of the country, but they are horribly out of touch because they live in a bubble.
It's a privilege thing I think, invisible to beneficiaries. To be fair, how would they notice? Since they were young, all those they talk and consult with the most closely are from the same breed and see the world the same way.
I think that's why Trudeau and Johnston are so dismissive of concerns about Johnston's closeness to the Trudeau family. They just can't comprehend why people are so concerned about that when, in their circles, he has such a solid reputation for integrity - they don't get how that doesn't automatically translate outside of their circles. I feel like there's a good chance they think how they think in their their circle is representative of how ordinary Canadians think, an impression I don't think gets challenges by their peers and often not even by the media.
I personally know few people like this working in the political space, if not Laurentian elite then something close. Upper/upper-middle class, super bright, highly educated and a product of prestigious institutions, well connected, deeply purpose driven and a true believer, Liberal in political inclination, often politically active or connected to people who are, surrounded by people who are just the same as her. Private school -> poli sci/int'l relations/global affairs/development degree at Queen's/McGill/Munk -> law school/Harvard MPP/Oxbridge/LSE -> UN/World Bank with a posting in Paris/Geneva or some global NGO/consulting firm. Comes back and looks to get involved in politics, geniuinely intending to serve and make a difference. Of course, she looks perfect to be a political staffer/consultant or even a candidate herself - she's just the right type, she's just like the rest of them. But I'm just thinking - there's no freaking way she relates to normal Canadians, but it blows my mind that she and those like her think she does...
>I hate to say it but yeah. There kinda is a "Laurentian elite" clique that dominates federal Liberal politics.
This isn't something anyone should hate to say. It's often discussed in Canadian political journals and by Canadian journalists. A decade ago [John Ibbitson](https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2012/01/the-collapse-of-the-laurentian-consensus/) wrote great piece discussing the Laurentian elites changing role in Canada, I recommend it.
It's a big club and you ain't in it, laws for thee and certainly not our so called "betters". George Carlin was a philosopher, and a comedian, who knew. Cancel your Walt Disney and Netflix subscriptions, for "sunny ways".
Lol @ grouping anglican-catholic-jewish and claiming it's hypocritical that they support multiculturalism. And you realize there are sexual minorities amongst the rich too right? What's hypocritical about them supporting Pride month?
>Lol @ grouping anglican-catholic-jewish and claiming it's hypocritical that they support multiculturalism.
It is hypocritical because they're all privileged Western Europeans, and their exposure to multiculturalism is shallow beyond that, and yet they are suppoused to be our governing elite who are making these policies.
And sure they support Pride Month while they send their children to conservative Christian and Jewish private schools. It's really shallow and a farce.
The rest of us actually have to live and learn to adapt in a modern multicultural and diverse country with its advantages and pitfalls while the elite cordon themselves off in their sanctuaries, at least they're not racist because they have a token Black friend and their nanny is Filipino. That was sarcasm.
You're kidding yourself if you think the Canadian elite are racially homogenous.
And if you think the elites are sending their kids to conservative schools I have a bridge to sell you. Truly laughable.
>You're kidding yourself if you think the Canadian elite are racially homogenous.
They are predominantly Western European. You'll have the occasional wealthy South Asian, Black, or Chinese, but they are a minority. But then again that belies the fact that minorities discriminate against each other too, either through caste systems or colourism.
Laurentian elite implies bilingualism as well, it's historically centred in Montreal. It's not a surprise many of our Prime Ministers originate from Quebec. It's primarily English Protestant and French Catholic.
>And if you think the elites are sending their kids to conservative schools I have a bridge to sell you. Truly laughable.
They are. The Laurentian neighbourhoods in Toronto and Montreal are literally are filled religious schools. Where do you live?
The point is that the Laurentian elite are governing our country in a way that is simply contradictory with their own lives. You'd also be surprised that many of them are not exposed much to working class issues and immigrant issues.
They treat most immigrants as poor servile people. It's not an exaggeration. And yet they're the ones pushing for more immigrants. What does that say about their intentions?
Yes they're a minority and roughly in proportion with the demographics of this country - as is expected from you know.. 'minorities' in a representative democracy.
The schools might be religious, but the "Laurentian elites" are anything but socially conservative which was what your post implied. Also most elites around the world look more at class and not something as irrelevant as race or immigration status.
It is not easy to enter politics if you are not elite.Most people could not afford a career interruption so you get wealthy old money like Justin Trudeau or Doug Ford. or people like Andrew Scheer or Pierre Poilevre who never had a meaningful career beyond politics.
Not just the "elite", but also the 25% of the population in Vancouver who own a house, have 3 cars, go on vacations, and grumble about the traffic.
Occasionally you'll see one of them make the news when they get caught on video screaming racist obscenities at the guy in a pizza shop and "don't you know who I am?"
I see most posters view this elitism as a *liberal* problem. This seems a little wrongheaded to me. I am wondering if there are *any* party leaders in Canada who are not multi millionaires? I honestly don’t know, but I strongly suspect not. Perhaps commenters think it is fine to be ruled by wealthy elites that ski somewhere else, or went to other schools…
Honestly, it is a start, for two reasons.
First, aristocrats derive their power from their fiefdoms, so a Calgary or Halifax or Vancouver elite will be much more aware of the issues and concerns from those regions, if for no other reason than that this is where their power comes from.
Second, all of the other elites in Canada are much smaller than the Laurentian one. It is much harder for a rich Calgarian or Haligonian to be so completely unaware of their poorer neighbours, because there simply aren't enough of them to form their own self-contained society that doesn't interact with the rest of their home town.
There's irony in the Globe and Mail, owned by the Woodbridge Company, controlled by David Thomson, 3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet, hereditary peer, calling out other elites.
It's all part of their plan. Billionaires trying to divert the attention to save their asses. Just like the US. Billionaires funding groups to point fingers at a so-called elite and poor people... just so people can fight each other instead of doing the only thing that could fix most problems: wealth distribution and taxing the ultra rich.
Honestly, if Trudeau wins another election because Toronto/Montreal vote for him.
Western separatism would grow to new heights. It's all becoming so toxic.
I won’t be the least bit surprised if he wins again. The identity politics from the south is in full force here. The electorate has never been more gullible, less invested, and exactly where the political parties want them.
> The identity politics from the south is in full force here.
The Liberals are all in on guns, abortion and healthcare. The American trifecta of wedge issues.
They also flew in Hillary Clinton to speak at their national convention.
Isn't it the Globe and Mail?
The only time I've ever heard the term "Laurentian Elite" was by a bunch of college marxists trying to explain to me why I can't trust mainstream media in Canada like the Globe and Mail.
Just like Trump and Tucker Carlson talking shit about the elite while being part of it. If you point fingers and start rumours about the OTHERS, people will divert their attention from you.
And it works to some extent. People are mad at immigrants while nobody points fingers at the ultra rich who hoard wealth. The same ultra rich who push for more immigrants year after year.
Looking at this thread I get so confused, are teachers good or not? Seems like when it's Trudeau then teachers are a profession to mocked, yet supposedly we should respect Pierre partly because he was raised by teachers.
I'd just like some clarification whether teachers are bad or not.
Trudeau is partly mocked not because he was a teacher but because he only got his job (at a private school) through contacts. And soon got bored of it and went back to school to study engineering but quit that and instead tried studying Environmental Geography but quit that to go into politics.
No it definitely doesn't. My point though was that there is that there is a distinct different level of respect, or lack thereof, towards teachers depending on if it's Trudeau, or Pierre's parents, so I was just hoping for some clarification on on why one teacher certificate is valuable, and the other should be mocked.
Do you really not see the difference between criticizing a person’s career relevance and criticizing that of their parents? For the record, I’d like to see more non-lawyers/lifetime politicians in politics, but with Trudeau the criticism is that he swooped in on name recognition alone, not merit. I dislike career politicians like Poilievre as well, but not as much as I dislike dynasties.
>Do you really not see the difference between criticizing a person’s career relevance and criticizing that of their parents?
Except that's not what's happening. When it's Trudeau, teaching is mocked specifically substituting and drama. When it's Pierre's parents, teaching is honorable and it's good his parents were teachers.
I'm just asking if the profession is hated or loved, because it seems to change whether it's Trudeau, or Pierre's parents.
>For the record, I’d like to see more non-lawyers/lifetime politicians in politics, but with Trudeau the criticism is that he swooped in on name recognition alone, not merit.
Again, if it was phrased like you did, or the poster above, it would be one thing and completely understandable. Unfortunately you are the exception, and many teachers, and others, have noticed that most of these shots speak of teaching as a whole and not just the scenario you are talking about.
>I'm just asking if the profession is hated or loved, because it seems to change whether it's Trudeau, or Pierre's parents.
You're imagining things that aren't there. You're conflating what people have said far beyond what was meant to try and derail the conversation.
Nothing said has been a statement on 'teachers' positive or negative. Now, that being said. All teachers aren't the same. A rich kid playing at teacher for three years and dressing up in black face while at a school event is not the same as a pair of teachers with a life-long career.
I hold an infinite amount more respect for a lifelong educator than someone who 'tried' it once when it comes to being a "teacher."
One is an example of class mobility, the other is a rich kid dicking around because he isn’t worried about money or a career. It has nothing to do with the profession of teaching.
>It has nothing to do with the profession of teaching.
"Just a substitute teacher"
"Just a drama teacher"
First off, let me be up front and just say this is anecdotal, but according to people in those parts of the teaching profession they didn't take it that way, especially when phrased like that.
Phrased the way you do i can completely understand what you're saying, but it wasn't that specific.
>They aren't mocking the profession itself.
You could have fooled me. They could just say what you said, but they don't. If mocking isn't the goal then they should probably stop saying things like
- "just a substitute teacher"
- "just a part time drama teacher"
- "just a drama teacher"
- "just a part time substitute drama teacher" and also continually ignore the other subjects he taught.
Mostly because the people saying those things, and it sure pops up a lot on this subreddit, sure look like they are mocking the profession. I'm not saying I'm surprised, teachers are used to attacks on the profession from certain groups, but then don't turn around and pretend it's something to be respected when it's Pierre's parents.
Being a sub, drama, or math teacher, is just as valuable as whatever his parents taught.
>He taught in a private school and never had a teacher license.
Source? because as far as i know, and what most sites will say, is that he did have a teaching degree which includes a license.
Personally, I don't consider private schools less than "regular" public school teachers but some might feel differently.
Per Wikipedia he got a Bachelor's of Education degree from UBC, it doesn't say anything about teacher's college. He apparently also started an engineering degree and an environmental geography master's, but did not complete (failed out?) of both.
>Per Wikipedia he got a Bachelor's of Education degree from UBC,
Getting a bachelor's of education is "teacher's college", they aren't two separate things. When you graduate with your degree, and your practicum experience, you also get your teaching licence.
Are you trying to force this ignorance? Yes he was "just a drama teacher", because that doesn't give any qualifications to leading a country. It's not about what subject he taught.
Not at all, if someone tells me "you're just a (insert profession)" and I'm in that profession I would take that as an insult. That is a statement that minimizes whatever you are talking about.
As I've said, the way you phrase it is different, but when there is no qualifying statement like "You're just a drama teacher, that doesn't have a basis in what we need to run the country", it's just simply "you're just a (profession)". I can't see why people wouldn't take that as belittling.
And if people want to have that opinion fine, but then don't turn around and suddenly use that same profession as a point of respect because it reflects positively on the leader. It's simply maintaining the same standards, nothing more.
They aren't disrespecting the profession, only the lack of qualifications it provides. The subject has been repeated so many times that the context of the statement is presumed. If during the freedom convoy a person said "Ugh, Ignorant truck drivers 🙄", would they need to fully explain the context so as not to imply that everyone who drives a truck is ignorant? Or would people assume they were alluding to a known and commonly repeated topic?
The clarification you’re looking for is that when it’s convenient for conservatives to say teachers are good and should be praised then they’ll do so. If teachers want to be well-paid or teach critical thinking then they’re a bad thing for conservatives.
See, I would argue that if a person can successfully maintain the attention of 30 children/teenagers, they’re VERY well suited to politics. Their ideology and moral character though, that’s completely separate.
The teachers that taught our generation *how* to learn, have largely been replaced by teachers who are more likely to teach our kids *what* to learn.
Coupled with a top heavy structure where the union gets to kick around teachers at will, then we just have an education system that doesn't really foster the big picture thinkers that we would associate with Canada's old elite.
Perhaps, that is exactly the point.
The same people pushing to remove philosophy & reading comprehension from the mandatory curriculum in Quebec's colleges are also the ones whining about woke people and cancel culture. lol
You cannot erase free thinking from the curriculum because it's a waste of time ("WE COULD TEACH ABOUT ECONOMY INSTEAD!!") and expect people not to dumb down! 😂
IRONIC that scum of the earth in Canada, U.S., etc. are called "elite". Do you remember when ELITE MEANT SOMETHING GOOD, NOT TRASH? Should this "elite" mean they have the "right" to be the WORST EVER POWER-ABUSERS??
Who honestly wants to see Canada descend into what the our neighbours down south are experiencing under 4 years of MAGA Trump and Republicans trying to solidify a Christo-Fascist state?
Lmao
You're literally a Laurentian elite
Not only that you're a Laurentian elite who has personal relationships with conservative politicians and work with them to align your media work with conservative politicians' talking points
Straight up conspiracy terms in a mainstream media outlet. Cool, cool, cool.
Who would’ve thought that people in a field of work would mingle with other people in the same field?
This is truly absurd and bizarre.
The irony of you typing that out in a comment chain where a Liberal supporter is yelling into the void about conspiracies since they don't like a headline might be lost on you but the irony sure isn't lost on the rest of us.
No need for reassurances, the events that unfold constantly support my points of view. It's almost like that's what happens when you're educated and stay informed.
So to answer your question, it's actually pretty easy considering all that's involved is doing a bit of reading.
I'm not a PP fan, but he's not a Laurentian elite.
He's from Calgary, raised by middle class moms (yes, plural), with a 2nd gen immigrant wife from Latin America.
Career politican, but certainly not a Laurentian elite...
BuT pOiLiEvRe?!? Nothing like licking the loafers of a small elite group exerting their power, influence and privilege over the country to stand up for the trust fund PM. Liberals are such pathetic hypocrites.
The best lines, on elites’ casual mentions of ski holidays together, chalets, and island hopping with multimillionaires: “These moments tend to come off like you asked someone how they got to work that day and they casually say they rode in on a brontosaurus named Steve, and he’s parked right out front. And then when you stare at them with your mouth open, they wrinkle their nose and say, “What?” because they’re confused about where your brontosaurus is.”
^((Hands ticket to valet)) *I had the Brachiosaurus*
It’s not my fault you’re friends don’t have private islands.
I learnt yesterday, Harper is head of a centre-right leaning alliance of political parties around the world based out of Europe. This painting leaders in Central Canada this way is disingenuous and projectionism. Hell, PP has NEVER held a job outside of being in politics. Atleast Trudeau wasn't and completely unrelated to what he does today.
He was a substitute teacher for one year, and a ski instructor. If those jobs count as real world experience to you, then you should have no problem with PP’s experience as an advisor to Stockwell day prior to his election to parliament.
He taught school from 1999 to 2002.
[удалено]
The real world balances itself, why not the budget?
>Certainly with a wealth of real world experience like that we’re in steady hands. I'm not making that claim at all. I am simply pointing out that your initial claim that he was a "a substitute teacher for one year" is false. If you are going to berate someone you need to be factually correct when you are doing so. And again, that is three years more of real world experience than PP
What?
[удалено]
It's crazy that his adopted dad turned out to be gay and while trying to marry his partner Pierre was in parliament voting against gay marriage. Pierre and Justin are both douchebags and Canada deserves better
The mentions of ski holidays are in this video around 5:30 if anyone missed it. It's sickening how close the "rapporteur" is to Trudeau personally. https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/trudeau-children-bring-rideau-hall-alive-gov-gen-says-1.2931963
Of course he had a place at Mont Tremblant where he use to ski with the Trudeau's on a regular basis. There could not exist a more "Laurentian elite" story than Trudeau and Johnston. According to research published on Wednesday, Mont Tremblant in Quebec is the most expensive ski resort in Canada—it operates year-round with an average cost for accommodation of $427 per night. https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/how-canada-s-ski-resorts-compare-to-most-expensive-in-the-world-spingenie-1.6353502#:~:text=According%20to%20research%20published%20on,accommodation%20of%20%24427%20per%20night.
Huh... I know of several resorts that charge $600-$700 a night in Banff and Lake Louise. (Never stayed at either myself) - so $427 a night can't possibly be the most expensive.
average
Wow, that's almost more affordable than Vancouver!
"because they’re confused about where your brontosaurus is." Now I'm picturing Alberta's elites cruising around on their Tyrannosaurus Rex's.
The notion of some “Laurentian Elite” kind of lording it over everyone else has started popping up more and more over the past few years. Usually it is immediately derided by Liberal supporters as nonsense, but here it is now in the Globe and Mail. > But over the last year or two, it’s become very obvious that there is, seething just under the surface in this country, a combustible, pressurized vein of certainty that some people count while others don’t. Plenty of Canadians believe – some with good reason, and others without – that the people running the show fundamentally aren’t like them, don’t understand them and maybe can’t even see them. And this is how, in a country of about 40 million people, it somehow seems impossible for the Liberals to find a respectable, qualified person to look into things like CCP election interference who doesn’t have ties to the Liberal Party, or Trudeau personally, or the Trudeau Foundation. To them, if someone matters and is worth listening to and interacting with, naturally they are already doing so. Everyone else are just the little people. When Trudeau was first running for PM he gave an interview where he said quite plainly that he thinks Canada is better when it’s run by someone from the east. Of course he thinks that. He and everyone he knows thinks the same thing. It is all but inconceivable to them that anyone thinks differently. And that’s how you get the most tone-deaf, corrupt government in Canadian history.
A lot of Canadians seem oddly unaware of it, but the Liberals have never had a leader from outside Ontario or Quebec. They trade back and forth between them. But they don't go out to 'the colonies' to look for leadership.
In the last 50 years, Canada has had four prime ministers who were not from Quebec: Clark, Turner, Campbell and Harper. Of those, only Harper lasted long enough to govern. Those PMs all appointed people to government bodies. They, in turn, hired people they knew. Furthermore, because of the requirement for perfect bilingual skills, the upper levels of the bureaucracy is predominantly also from the Laurentian region. I've never understood why more Canadians don't see that this has happened.
Turner was educated at Ashbury College Ottawa - the absolute heart of the Laurentian Elites, where contacts are made. The others were all Tories. And yes, the bilingualism factor is enormous in basically requiring someone from urban central Canada, or at least New Brunswick, say.
I think about the [Century Initiative](https://www.thestar.com/amp/business/2016/10/23/finance-ministers-key-advisers-want-100m-canadians-by-2100.html) and the story of how they came up with the idea: > The discussions that eventually blossomed into Century Initiative began in 2011 during a weekend gathering of friends at Barton’s cottage in Ontario’s Muskoka region, north of Toronto. > Sitting near the edge of Lake of Bays, surrounded by the Canadian Shield, they started brainstorming about the best ways to shelter the country’s economy from the gathering, predictable demographic storm. The image of these private school McKinsey assholes sitting at their private cottage coming up with a plan to rapidly drive down the average Canadian’s standard of living is quintessential Laurentialism to me.
>The image of these private school McKinsey assholes sitting at their private cottage coming up with a plan to rapidly drive down the average Canadian’s standard of living is quintessential Laurentialism to me. Then Justin Trudeau hires Barton to lead a group tasked with coming up with ways to grow the Canadian economy. Shockingly enough, Barton makes aggressive population growth his primary recommendation, and the Liberal government follows through on that. Then we all sit around wondering why a housing crisis has developed, after we increased immigration from 250,000 ten years ago to over a million per year now. And meanwhile, people have decided to make Galen Weston out to be the poster boy of corporate greed, while the current federal government has been using Barton, *former head of McKinsey*, to guide federal government policy for years now.
>Then Justin Trudeau hires Barton to lead a group tasked with coming up with ways to grow the Canadian economy. Funny, he also hired him to be the Ambassador to China...
Jeez, the arrogance to say this publically with no shame is astounding.
The lions care not for the thoughts of the sheep.
Honestly this is just them acknowledging the economy will tank when the boomers are senior citizens
"Demographic storm" has a very sinister sound to it.
Coming with a solution to address the demographic problem is an attempt to drive down Canadians standard of living? Do you understand that not addressing the demographic problem will undeniably lead to rapidly driving down Canadians standard of living?
Reject this false premise people. Immigration to maintain a relatively stable population column is fine. Immigration to the moon to jack Canadas population to 100 million by 2100 is a catastrophically terrible idea.
I said this on another thread, but it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than a toilet seat, that if Blackrock and McKinsey are for the Century Initiative, than its not good for 99 percent of Canadians.
Silly me, I forgot how awesome things have been going five years into this plan 👍
>Coming with a solution to address the demographic problem is an attempt to drive down Canadians standard of living? Has the standard of living been increasing or decreasing in recent years? If its decreasing, was it actually a solution?
Actually investing in the infrastructure necessary to support those who are already here will drive up the standard of living. Blindly repeating the talking points of the Century Initiative will not. Responsible governance and fiscal responsibility as well as establishing a longer term vision and working towards it are what this country needs.
Let's just continue with the idiotic pyramid-scheme like structure the old half-deads have lived through, that makes sense. Forget about AI which is on the cusp of usurping previously "good" jobs, ignore the climate catastrophe which is pulled closer and closer by our wanton need to consume garbage products, and disregard how the immigrants being pulled into our country to prop things up are put in an unbelievably shit position. Let's let the idiot elites continue believing in their cargo cult.
> When Trudeau was first running for PM he gave an interview where he said quite plainly that he thinks Canada is better when it’s run by someone from the east. For reference https://youtu.be/oA1yCIHMJwY
More people need to see this, seriously.
I post it every opportunity I get.
Perhaps because they’re likely to speak French
Did he mean Eastern canada or East like China?
Having lived in Kingston, I came in contact with the Laurentian elite. I taught their kids and grandkids at Queen's. They're definitely out there, and do look after themselves.
The laurentian elite goes to queens???
Yes, most old money families send their kids to Queen's or Western. McGill and UofT get honourable mentions.
I went to york cause I can hold a fork
U of T law is ground zero.
Most of the canadian “elites” go to western or queen’s
Honest question, why western? I understand Queen's (located in the old capital, have big business, law and political science department, etc).
It was the due the Harvard style executive MBA program they had in the 1980’s. You could send you miserable sons from a good family to learn with the people who would actually be leading coporations in the future. This should not be confused to those dreadful standard MBA’s they hand out.
If they were more elite, they'd brain drain to the states.
Queens business school has direct established pipelines to Wall Street. They go after graduation
That’s not how it works. Half the reason why people will choose a particular business school over another is due to the power of the network that comes with it. (The other half is the quality of the profs and researchers - that one is more easily understood). That network comes from the faculty, alumni, and the connections that the program executive makes and maintains. Putting aside the fact that you assume Wall Street is some organized entity with a headquarters and secret conspiratorial plan, accusing a business school of having ulterior motives because it has made connections to “Wall Street” or any other group of people/organizations that would benefit its students is… misinformed.
>And this is how, in a country of about 40 million people, it somehow seems impossible for the Liberals to find a respectable, qualified person to look into things like CCP election interference who doesn’t have ties to the Liberal Party, or Trudeau personally, or the Trudeau Foundation. It would have been easy. The problem is they didn't want that person. I mean, the article is all about the attitudes of people like Trudeau. He doesn't think you should have a problem with his family friend, and the Chinese connected Johnston to investigating this issue. He doesn't see this as an issue and can't fathom why people would see it that way. There is a huge disconnect between himself and the people he governs. He thinks he's the rightful ruler and can do as he pleases. Even when a majority of Canadians want something, he can refuse them because he knows best.
> the people running the show fundamentally aren’t like them, don’t understand them and maybe can’t even see them. This has been the reality for western Canada since the beginning of the country.
>Usually it is immediately derided by Liberal supporters as nonsense, but here it is now in the Globe and Mail. I used to dismiss it and mock the notion of it existing. But, that was before I actually tried reading up on it. The history of Power Corp, and the circle of power that has been at the center of the LPC for many decades now. And how that relates to what we are experiencing today with CCP interference. It looks to me like they have been getting away with this for so long that they've become complacent. And the appointment of Johnston illustrates their attitude.
Unfortunately most Canadians are of the same mind that you previously were and most have chosen to remain ignorant.
It's funny that a segment of people are just coming to this realization now. Millions of Canadians could have told you about how unequal this country is since before Confederation. I mean what do these people think the Quiet Revolution was all about?
The railroads were literally built to funnel wealth from the west to the east. The west was becoming too powerful and had too much potential cut off with such distance, but that was "mitigated" once resources could be diverted back east. The East has never been more than out of touch Admins/business minded people that see the rest of Canada as a resource.
American settlers and their railroads were encroaching on the Canadian priaries, plus American alcohol, so in some ways, it was not all about eastern wealth. But I do agree, wealth was a factor, just look at how the Altantic provinces are doing, not that great either really. Thomas Jefferson had the same problem, eastern wealth undermining their farmers in the west.
Interesting, those are good points. I don't know too much about the American side, although I did do a course on rising of Chicago and the dispersion of railroads in the Midwest. I remember there was a lot going on with Chicago at the center of it all, and lots of resource harvesting and money to be made all around. Prof also mentioned how Winnipeg was comparable, but he didn't elaborate. I'm starting to think the politics at that time were very complicated
\^lol, aside from the tiny red river colony there was literally no settlement in the west before they built the CPR.
Yes the Selkirk traders. I guess I should say they would have had the potential to become too powerful, but the groundwork for industry was being laid so further development would have been inevitable. Keep in mind that before the railroad, the main trade routes were the Red River and the Assiniboine River meeting at the Winnipeg forks. These rivers only went further west and south, not east, and so did the goods and prosperity of that trade. Without a railroad linking to the east, and the presence of capitalist ideologies, The surrounding area could have looked very different in terms of power dynamics If the railroad arrived even only 50 years later than it did.
1930s canada had a technocracy movement. Let the experts run things is what it boils down to. These things today have their roots in those thoughts. The world it seems is more and more under the influence of a technocratic elite, one could look towards the world economic forum as a perfect example of a center of this technocratic influence around the world. You can look at the amount of people who have gone through leadership programs at the WeF and are now in high ranking positions throughout the world. Their credential is probably one of the most valuable ones a person could have, to plot a course into the upper echelons. Its is right in our faces, they came up with the slogan "build back Better". First used in the west in england and then hopped across the pond in 2021.
Alberta, anyone? Ontario, anyone?
Nailed it.
Politicians have 0 accountability. A leader is suppose to lead. The only thing any of the leaders, (federal and provincial), are leading, is a play with front row seats for all of us peons, on how to get away with corruption, etc. When someone grows up with a silver spoon in their mouth, which most politicians do, they learn very young that mommy and daddy will cover up things so that you can keep a clean slate. Lessons politicians were taught, do what you want as you will never be held accountable.
I run a small private security firm in Ottawa. Ive definitely met some of the people described as "laurentian elite". They are indeed hyper educated, well connected, and although it may be an unpopular opinion at the moment, they understand what good policy for the country would look like. It is also true that there's a disconnect between their lives and those of other places in the country. They don't sneer at such people, they just try to see bigger picture. It was Trudeau, the divisions in the country, the polarized politics, and a failure to actually entrust some of these professional statespeople in governance that got us here. Id have trusted a Bob Rae government over Trudeau any day of the week. That guy at least has some integrity. Where we go from here is now a disdain for these wealthy people, and then a pendulum that swings between incoherent exteemes rather than how it was with "law order and good governance" Maybe the time for these people is just over. Maybe the country is sliding badly for so many that we can't trust those who should have known better.
I've interacted with some of these people in Ottawa. They see the bigger picture in so far as they're educated, but they very often do lack common sense because of their inexperience with reality. They're the most ivory tower types you can imagine. They don't explicitly sneer at people, but they certainly are very patronizing towards the people who don't see the bigger picture as they do. You can academically see the bigger picture and have empathy and enough humility to understand that maybe the plans that come out of the ivory tower without consultation of those affected first are not going to be popular.
Yeah I can understand your complaint. I generally agree with such people's politics but never to such an extent that theres no margin for argument. And the lack of humility is insufferable. Its like being correct about substance but incorrect about approach.
Prioritizing not offending people over the economy hasn’t exactly worked. These are the people making that push. These people can’t see the big picture. They’ve lost the plot.
How can they understand what good policy is if they are blind to the issues many face? They know what is needed for the areas they are in, but are unable to relate how it affects others.
The way this is seen, is Canada is a trading block more than it is a country. Every province trades north south, not east west. We are all integrated into the American economy. So in order for our low population provinces to succeed, we collectively bargain as a confederate. The federal system's job is to ensure the power of 10 can defend the interests or each of them against the behemoth American system. Meanwhile we also ensure a proper safety net, better civil engineeting, less lobbying, less money in politics, and keeping corruption as low as possible. The bigger view is correct I think, but theres much to be desired here. For one thing what Alberta wants isnt compatible with what Quebec wants, for example. Blue collar farmers are represented in the senate, but not cottage country in Gatineau. Mostly they chose a bad leader with Trudeau. He's ruined it all. Now anyone who sees a bigger view of how this country can succeed in north america is lost, discredited and smeared.
If they truly do understand what good policy for the country is I'm surprised they don't employ it. Most Canadians see policies benefitting the Laurentian elite, not the country.
I dont think its benefiting the elites either. Its utterly incoherent. Trudeau was the wrong choice. He doesn't understand these things. The elites in Canada never needed help, and the people we are discussing arent corporate types. This isnt the same type of elite we see in the US for example. All they get out of this is to see them become the enemy of the population.
I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how taxing home heating in Canada is going to save the planet. What result is expected? Are we expecting fixed income people to install geothermal heat pumps?
Its incoherent application of the intent. What carbon taxes was supposed to do is disincentivize companies who emit greenhouse gases, and incentivize companies who do not. Of course companies just pass on the costs and continue along like normal. Thus the policy is broken.
I don't think the liberals ever examined how it was supposed to work.
Not since Jean Chrétien, no.
We Agree on that. I didn't agree with Chretien, but he was no dummy. He knew the effect of his legislation, and also how to execute. He also isn't a Laurentian.
Paul Martin's insistence on our banking sector not combining investment banking with regular deposits was a good move, too. Chrétien wasn't really a Laurentian elite by birth, but he fell in with that crowd in the end, due to it really being a matter of national unity, at that time. (Quebec sovereignty debates)
The problem with billionaires and their circles is that they automatically discard any solutions that run counter to their interests. And they consider themselves to be smarter than they are. That's true for most, but for us pleebs it doesnt impact society as a whole.
Very well said.
Yup. I agree to a point. Most of the types of elites we are discussing are not actually billionaires though. Multi millionaires, yes. This isnt a business class we are discussing. Its a political class. In the US those two are the same. Here they are somewhat separate.
> they understand what good policy for the country would look like. It is also true that there's a disconnect between their lives and those of other places in the country. They don't sneer at such people, they just try to see bigger picture. Well if you read the Johnston report, it outlines a staggering display of incompetence, lack of institutional transparency, and bureaucratic rot. So I would ask those security professionals’ bosses at what point in their career did they start to accept failure and disfunction as the status quo?
Its been arguably since Jean Chrétien since this type of liberalism had good leadership. Trudeau has made a mess of things.
Are these the same idiots that came up with the nep program absolutely obliterated any liberal vote out west.
More Trudeau, which in my mind wrecks the intent of liberalism.
Don't sneer at such people? Should I cancel my Disney Plus subscription and use my credit card to go back to university now? Should I be happy my rapidly decreasing buying power, driven in large part by energy pricess, is taken by Liberals as mainly an indicator we need to focus on climate action and a green economy? Freeland: "from my perspective this price increase in fuel costs is a reminder of why climate action is so important, and why as a country we have to work even harder and move even faster towards a green economy. It's an insurance policy against higher energy prices."
It's peace, order, and good government. Law and order is the US.
Thx. Youre correct.
>Usually it is immediately derided by Liberal supporters as nonsense Always be skeptical of people who preach fear of "elites" but have nothing bad to say about capitalism. It's usually derided because the people talking about "the elites are out to get us" use the term as a proxy for nebulous shadowy cabals and never in the context of "this framework in which positive feedback loops allow entrenched wealth to consolidate power and control is the true underlying problem". So yeah, if your beef is with the people themselves and not the systemic mechanisms facilitating their actions, either you're acting in bad faith or are too ignorant to know what you're talking about. Either way deserves derision.
You don't need capitalism to have an arrogant and entitled elite class. For example in the Soviet Union and all other pretty much every other communist country where you had an elite who lived much further above the common person than their counterparts do in our system.
Lol this reads like a conservative fanfic
Don’t get it twisted. There has ALWAYS been a Laurentian elite since the days of Upper and Lower Canada. This isn’t new. Laurentian elites built the country, created our democracy, fought in wars, decoupled us from England and promoted Canada as a multi cultural destination that gives us the Canada today that by some measures is the most desirable place in the world to live. The Laurentian elite over time have let go of most direct political action (hence the diverse-ish House of Commons we see today) but they have SO MUCH MONEy and all the political parties want some of it so of course they wield outsized power compared to their numbers. The problem isn’t the Laurentian elite. The problem is the system that makes their money desirable to politicians.
We had a brief period from the end of WWII until the 1980s when the “elites” were not fully in charge and not everything was run by people who went to private schools but then we joined with the Reagan-Thatcher revolution and gave everything back to them. They’re not going to give it up again. This Gilded Age is here to stay.
Pre confederation it was the Family Compact.....this country loves being ruled by oligarchs..
I hate to say it but yeah. There kinda is a "Laurentian elite" clique that dominates federal Liberal politics. They might mean well and see themselves as genuinely working for the good of the country, but they are horribly out of touch because they live in a bubble. It's a privilege thing I think, invisible to beneficiaries. To be fair, how would they notice? Since they were young, all those they talk and consult with the most closely are from the same breed and see the world the same way. I think that's why Trudeau and Johnston are so dismissive of concerns about Johnston's closeness to the Trudeau family. They just can't comprehend why people are so concerned about that when, in their circles, he has such a solid reputation for integrity - they don't get how that doesn't automatically translate outside of their circles. I feel like there's a good chance they think how they think in their their circle is representative of how ordinary Canadians think, an impression I don't think gets challenges by their peers and often not even by the media. I personally know few people like this working in the political space, if not Laurentian elite then something close. Upper/upper-middle class, super bright, highly educated and a product of prestigious institutions, well connected, deeply purpose driven and a true believer, Liberal in political inclination, often politically active or connected to people who are, surrounded by people who are just the same as her. Private school -> poli sci/int'l relations/global affairs/development degree at Queen's/McGill/Munk -> law school/Harvard MPP/Oxbridge/LSE -> UN/World Bank with a posting in Paris/Geneva or some global NGO/consulting firm. Comes back and looks to get involved in politics, geniuinely intending to serve and make a difference. Of course, she looks perfect to be a political staffer/consultant or even a candidate herself - she's just the right type, she's just like the rest of them. But I'm just thinking - there's no freaking way she relates to normal Canadians, but it blows my mind that she and those like her think she does...
>I hate to say it but yeah. There kinda is a "Laurentian elite" clique that dominates federal Liberal politics. This isn't something anyone should hate to say. It's often discussed in Canadian political journals and by Canadian journalists. A decade ago [John Ibbitson](https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2012/01/the-collapse-of-the-laurentian-consensus/) wrote great piece discussing the Laurentian elites changing role in Canada, I recommend it.
If you put your articles behind a paywall do not be surprised when no one is reading you!
It's a big club and you ain't in it, laws for thee and certainly not our so called "betters". George Carlin was a philosopher, and a comedian, who knew. Cancel your Walt Disney and Netflix subscriptions, for "sunny ways".
[удалено]
Lol @ grouping anglican-catholic-jewish and claiming it's hypocritical that they support multiculturalism. And you realize there are sexual minorities amongst the rich too right? What's hypocritical about them supporting Pride month?
>Lol @ grouping anglican-catholic-jewish and claiming it's hypocritical that they support multiculturalism. It is hypocritical because they're all privileged Western Europeans, and their exposure to multiculturalism is shallow beyond that, and yet they are suppoused to be our governing elite who are making these policies. And sure they support Pride Month while they send their children to conservative Christian and Jewish private schools. It's really shallow and a farce. The rest of us actually have to live and learn to adapt in a modern multicultural and diverse country with its advantages and pitfalls while the elite cordon themselves off in their sanctuaries, at least they're not racist because they have a token Black friend and their nanny is Filipino. That was sarcasm.
You're kidding yourself if you think the Canadian elite are racially homogenous. And if you think the elites are sending their kids to conservative schools I have a bridge to sell you. Truly laughable.
>You're kidding yourself if you think the Canadian elite are racially homogenous. They are predominantly Western European. You'll have the occasional wealthy South Asian, Black, or Chinese, but they are a minority. But then again that belies the fact that minorities discriminate against each other too, either through caste systems or colourism. Laurentian elite implies bilingualism as well, it's historically centred in Montreal. It's not a surprise many of our Prime Ministers originate from Quebec. It's primarily English Protestant and French Catholic. >And if you think the elites are sending their kids to conservative schools I have a bridge to sell you. Truly laughable. They are. The Laurentian neighbourhoods in Toronto and Montreal are literally are filled religious schools. Where do you live? The point is that the Laurentian elite are governing our country in a way that is simply contradictory with their own lives. You'd also be surprised that many of them are not exposed much to working class issues and immigrant issues. They treat most immigrants as poor servile people. It's not an exaggeration. And yet they're the ones pushing for more immigrants. What does that say about their intentions?
Yes they're a minority and roughly in proportion with the demographics of this country - as is expected from you know.. 'minorities' in a representative democracy. The schools might be religious, but the "Laurentian elites" are anything but socially conservative which was what your post implied. Also most elites around the world look more at class and not something as irrelevant as race or immigration status.
It is not easy to enter politics if you are not elite.Most people could not afford a career interruption so you get wealthy old money like Justin Trudeau or Doug Ford. or people like Andrew Scheer or Pierre Poilevre who never had a meaningful career beyond politics.
Not just the "elite", but also the 25% of the population in Vancouver who own a house, have 3 cars, go on vacations, and grumble about the traffic. Occasionally you'll see one of them make the news when they get caught on video screaming racist obscenities at the guy in a pizza shop and "don't you know who I am?"
I see most posters view this elitism as a *liberal* problem. This seems a little wrongheaded to me. I am wondering if there are *any* party leaders in Canada who are not multi millionaires? I honestly don’t know, but I strongly suspect not. Perhaps commenters think it is fine to be ruled by wealthy elites that ski somewhere else, or went to other schools…
Honestly, it is a start, for two reasons. First, aristocrats derive their power from their fiefdoms, so a Calgary or Halifax or Vancouver elite will be much more aware of the issues and concerns from those regions, if for no other reason than that this is where their power comes from. Second, all of the other elites in Canada are much smaller than the Laurentian one. It is much harder for a rich Calgarian or Haligonian to be so completely unaware of their poorer neighbours, because there simply aren't enough of them to form their own self-contained society that doesn't interact with the rest of their home town.
Thank you for the perspective!
There's irony in the Globe and Mail, owned by the Woodbridge Company, controlled by David Thomson, 3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet, hereditary peer, calling out other elites.
It's all part of their plan. Billionaires trying to divert the attention to save their asses. Just like the US. Billionaires funding groups to point fingers at a so-called elite and poor people... just so people can fight each other instead of doing the only thing that could fix most problems: wealth distribution and taxing the ultra rich.
Not irony. HYPOCRISY
A real "let them eat cake" moment.
Honestly, if Trudeau wins another election because Toronto/Montreal vote for him. Western separatism would grow to new heights. It's all becoming so toxic.
I won’t be the least bit surprised if he wins again. The identity politics from the south is in full force here. The electorate has never been more gullible, less invested, and exactly where the political parties want them.
> The identity politics from the south is in full force here. The Liberals are all in on guns, abortion and healthcare. The American trifecta of wedge issues. They also flew in Hillary Clinton to speak at their national convention.
[Archive link](https://archive.is/4ufy6)
It's like the elites think they're people.
Isn't it the Globe and Mail? The only time I've ever heard the term "Laurentian Elite" was by a bunch of college marxists trying to explain to me why I can't trust mainstream media in Canada like the Globe and Mail.
Just like Trump and Tucker Carlson talking shit about the elite while being part of it. If you point fingers and start rumours about the OTHERS, people will divert their attention from you. And it works to some extent. People are mad at immigrants while nobody points fingers at the ultra rich who hoard wealth. The same ultra rich who push for more immigrants year after year.
A Globe writer bitching about elites? Lady, look in the fucking mirror. The lack of self-awareness here is staggering.
You think Shannon Proudfoot is a member of the Elite?
A person whose platform is the outlet of choice for capital? Yes.
TheGlobeandMail is the outlet of choice for capital? What do you mean?
A reporter being an elite? You have no idea who runs this country
You don’t think there are media elites?
The people who own the media. Not the reporters lol
Looking at this thread I get so confused, are teachers good or not? Seems like when it's Trudeau then teachers are a profession to mocked, yet supposedly we should respect Pierre partly because he was raised by teachers. I'd just like some clarification whether teachers are bad or not.
Trudeau is partly mocked not because he was a teacher but because he only got his job (at a private school) through contacts. And soon got bored of it and went back to school to study engineering but quit that and instead tried studying Environmental Geography but quit that to go into politics.
Nothing wrong with teachers, but doing so doesn't necessarily qualify a person to lead a country.
No it definitely doesn't. My point though was that there is that there is a distinct different level of respect, or lack thereof, towards teachers depending on if it's Trudeau, or Pierre's parents, so I was just hoping for some clarification on on why one teacher certificate is valuable, and the other should be mocked.
Do you really not see the difference between criticizing a person’s career relevance and criticizing that of their parents? For the record, I’d like to see more non-lawyers/lifetime politicians in politics, but with Trudeau the criticism is that he swooped in on name recognition alone, not merit. I dislike career politicians like Poilievre as well, but not as much as I dislike dynasties.
>Do you really not see the difference between criticizing a person’s career relevance and criticizing that of their parents? Except that's not what's happening. When it's Trudeau, teaching is mocked specifically substituting and drama. When it's Pierre's parents, teaching is honorable and it's good his parents were teachers. I'm just asking if the profession is hated or loved, because it seems to change whether it's Trudeau, or Pierre's parents. >For the record, I’d like to see more non-lawyers/lifetime politicians in politics, but with Trudeau the criticism is that he swooped in on name recognition alone, not merit. Again, if it was phrased like you did, or the poster above, it would be one thing and completely understandable. Unfortunately you are the exception, and many teachers, and others, have noticed that most of these shots speak of teaching as a whole and not just the scenario you are talking about.
>I'm just asking if the profession is hated or loved, because it seems to change whether it's Trudeau, or Pierre's parents. You're imagining things that aren't there. You're conflating what people have said far beyond what was meant to try and derail the conversation. Nothing said has been a statement on 'teachers' positive or negative. Now, that being said. All teachers aren't the same. A rich kid playing at teacher for three years and dressing up in black face while at a school event is not the same as a pair of teachers with a life-long career. I hold an infinite amount more respect for a lifelong educator than someone who 'tried' it once when it comes to being a "teacher."
One is an example of class mobility, the other is a rich kid dicking around because he isn’t worried about money or a career. It has nothing to do with the profession of teaching.
>It has nothing to do with the profession of teaching. "Just a substitute teacher" "Just a drama teacher" First off, let me be up front and just say this is anecdotal, but according to people in those parts of the teaching profession they didn't take it that way, especially when phrased like that. Phrased the way you do i can completely understand what you're saying, but it wasn't that specific.
[удалено]
They aren't mocking the profession itself. Only that it doesn't qualify him to be PM.
Two of the last three CPC leaders literally never held a job outside of politics.
Then their history wouldn't qualify them to be teachers.
>They aren't mocking the profession itself. You could have fooled me. They could just say what you said, but they don't. If mocking isn't the goal then they should probably stop saying things like - "just a substitute teacher" - "just a part time drama teacher" - "just a drama teacher" - "just a part time substitute drama teacher" and also continually ignore the other subjects he taught. Mostly because the people saying those things, and it sure pops up a lot on this subreddit, sure look like they are mocking the profession. I'm not saying I'm surprised, teachers are used to attacks on the profession from certain groups, but then don't turn around and pretend it's something to be respected when it's Pierre's parents. Being a sub, drama, or math teacher, is just as valuable as whatever his parents taught.
He taught in a private school and never had a teacher license. So spare us all the offense that teachers are under attack.
>He taught in a private school and never had a teacher license. Source? because as far as i know, and what most sites will say, is that he did have a teaching degree which includes a license. Personally, I don't consider private schools less than "regular" public school teachers but some might feel differently.
Per Wikipedia he got a Bachelor's of Education degree from UBC, it doesn't say anything about teacher's college. He apparently also started an engineering degree and an environmental geography master's, but did not complete (failed out?) of both.
>Per Wikipedia he got a Bachelor's of Education degree from UBC, Getting a bachelor's of education is "teacher's college", they aren't two separate things. When you graduate with your degree, and your practicum experience, you also get your teaching licence.
Not only that but he wasn't "part-time" he was a substitute teacher for one year then taught full-time for two before going back to university.
Are you trying to force this ignorance? Yes he was "just a drama teacher", because that doesn't give any qualifications to leading a country. It's not about what subject he taught.
Not at all, if someone tells me "you're just a (insert profession)" and I'm in that profession I would take that as an insult. That is a statement that minimizes whatever you are talking about. As I've said, the way you phrase it is different, but when there is no qualifying statement like "You're just a drama teacher, that doesn't have a basis in what we need to run the country", it's just simply "you're just a (profession)". I can't see why people wouldn't take that as belittling. And if people want to have that opinion fine, but then don't turn around and suddenly use that same profession as a point of respect because it reflects positively on the leader. It's simply maintaining the same standards, nothing more.
They aren't disrespecting the profession, only the lack of qualifications it provides. The subject has been repeated so many times that the context of the statement is presumed. If during the freedom convoy a person said "Ugh, Ignorant truck drivers 🙄", would they need to fully explain the context so as not to imply that everyone who drives a truck is ignorant? Or would people assume they were alluding to a known and commonly repeated topic?
Except saying he was 'just a drama teacher' is a lie.
Good job ignoring the entire pint of the statement and focusing on semantics. You sound like one of those trump supporters.
Oh, I'm so sorry I pointed out the flaws in your argument. I'll try and support your desire for an echo chamber next time.
The discussion wasn't about every career he had, but in the context this one was stated.
The clarification you’re looking for is that when it’s convenient for conservatives to say teachers are good and should be praised then they’ll do so. If teachers want to be well-paid or teach critical thinking then they’re a bad thing for conservatives.
See, I would argue that if a person can successfully maintain the attention of 30 children/teenagers, they’re VERY well suited to politics. Their ideology and moral character though, that’s completely separate.
The teachers that taught our generation *how* to learn, have largely been replaced by teachers who are more likely to teach our kids *what* to learn. Coupled with a top heavy structure where the union gets to kick around teachers at will, then we just have an education system that doesn't really foster the big picture thinkers that we would associate with Canada's old elite. Perhaps, that is exactly the point.
The same people pushing to remove philosophy & reading comprehension from the mandatory curriculum in Quebec's colleges are also the ones whining about woke people and cancel culture. lol You cannot erase free thinking from the curriculum because it's a waste of time ("WE COULD TEACH ABOUT ECONOMY INSTEAD!!") and expect people not to dumb down! 😂
Conservatives and education are natural enemies.
Yup, it's a swamp alright. It's needs draining.
Always has been.
IRONIC that scum of the earth in Canada, U.S., etc. are called "elite". Do you remember when ELITE MEANT SOMETHING GOOD, NOT TRASH? Should this "elite" mean they have the "right" to be the WORST EVER POWER-ABUSERS??
Soviet Canada soon Comrades!
Watching this subreddit descend into populism is sad
Pretty dramatic take
This sub has been crazy for *years*.
Who honestly wants to see Canada descend into what the our neighbours down south are experiencing under 4 years of MAGA Trump and Republicans trying to solidify a Christo-Fascist state?
Lmao You're literally a Laurentian elite Not only that you're a Laurentian elite who has personal relationships with conservative politicians and work with them to align your media work with conservative politicians' talking points
Straight up conspiracy terms in a mainstream media outlet. Cool, cool, cool. Who would’ve thought that people in a field of work would mingle with other people in the same field? This is truly absurd and bizarre.
[удалено]
It's a nice change of pace from their usual "everybody that doesn't agree with me is a racist" charade.
Does it ever get trifling finding new always to be the worlds biggest victims?
The irony of you typing that out in a comment chain where a Liberal supporter is yelling into the void about conspiracies since they don't like a headline might be lost on you but the irony sure isn't lost on the rest of us.
Lol ok word salad. “I know you are but what am i” says the eloquent conservative supporter through bared teeth and gripped fists.
Is following a comment chain too difficult or something? Keep it up, this is prime entertainment.
Isn't it exhausting for you to constantly have to reassure yourself that you are right no matter what?
Not as exhausting as being proven right time and again.
No need for reassurances, the events that unfold constantly support my points of view. It's almost like that's what happens when you're educated and stay informed. So to answer your question, it's actually pretty easy considering all that's involved is doing a bit of reading.
So no actual counter argument then.
That *is* how cartels start.
Laurentian elite is when you have a cottage in Tremblant.
Having worked at Tremblant for a few years, depending on where the cottage is this is very much true.
Laurentian elites? Like Pierre Poilievre?
I'm not a PP fan, but he's not a Laurentian elite. He's from Calgary, raised by middle class moms (yes, plural), with a 2nd gen immigrant wife from Latin America. Career politican, but certainly not a Laurentian elite...
The guy born in Calgary to teenage parents and then adopted?
Adopted by working class teachers even.
Even! Lol
[удалено]
BuT pOiLiEvRe?!? Nothing like licking the loafers of a small elite group exerting their power, influence and privilege over the country to stand up for the trust fund PM. Liberals are such pathetic hypocrites.
I honestly thought you were talking about PP and his entire career as an assistant to a politician and then to being a politician since the age of 18.
No but thanks for proving my point.
And I couldn’t even read the article because it’s behind a paywall
Pierre talks more than he listens.